Lay Summary
This study explores how education and literacy shape native speakers’ grammatical knowledge, challenging assumptions of uniformity in linguistic competence. It highlights that reading habits (print exposure) predict language abilities more effectively than years of formal education, particularly in non-Western contexts like Turkey, where education systems vary widely. The paper critiques traditional measures like the High/Low Academic Attainment distinction, showing their limitations in diverse contexts. It calls for culturally sensitive approaches to studying language development and emphasizes the need for inclusive methods to better understand the interplay between education, literacy, and language.
Introduction
Over the last few decades, linguistics has assumed that native speakers of a language converge on the same grammatical knowledge uniformly and successfully (e.g., Chomsky, 1965). However, recent studies show that individual differences in grammatical knowledge in L1 speakers is much more pervasive than it was postulated before (e.g., Dabrowska, 2012). These studies show the impact of quality of input, which is modulated by education, literacy, and reading. Much of linguistics — for good or bad — has been influenced by what some call Chomsky’s hidden legacy (Christiansen & Chater, 2016), and ignored effects that influence input quality.
The idea that education may modulate linguistic knowledge is not surprising for several reasons — although it was and has been heavily ignored by many linguists, therefore unsurprising does not necessitate unimportant. Education is an amalgamation of opportunities for reading [c1] and writing (becoming literate), and improving cognition. Formal education provides a stepping stone into becoming literate, and then sustaining these literacy practices (i.e., reading). It is now established that reading has a reciprocal effect on language and cognition, known as the Matthew Effect (e.g., Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998) the more one reads, the better their cognition becomes, and the better their language skills become, which improve reading, which in turn improve cognition. This is a simplified way of putting it, the real entanglement may be more bidirectional than unidirectional. Secondly, a recent meta-analysis shows that each year of schooling improves nonverbal IQ skills about 3 to 5 points on average (Ritchie & Elliot, 2018).
Speakers with fewer years of spent in formal education appear to demonstrate more individual differences in L1 grammatical knowledge and they appear to extract slightly different representations of constructions (both within and across groups). For instance, Dabrowska (1997) found that increasing number of years in formal education refine the use of syntactic cues in comprehending complex noun phrases in English. However, even highly educated speakers appear to differ in the way they extract generalizations from input (e.g., Gedik, 2024, in prep).
Several studies (e.g., Street & Dabrowska 2010; Street 2020) have used a high and low academic attainment cut (HAA and LAA, respectively) to investigate the relationship between native speakers’ performance on language tasks and education. These studies consider L1 speakers with an undergraduate degree or beyond to belong to the HAA group, and on average they have an average of 14-22 years of time spent in formal education. In contrast, LAA group consists of speakers with around 10 years of formal education. This is a considerable gap. In addition to this cut, emerging studies have also used illiterates, ex-literates, and literates as one continuum to investigate if education-related factors that were explained previously would interact with performance on language tasks. Emerging research shows that literacy may be an important predictor in predicting speakers’ performance on language tasks (Dabrowska et al. 2022, 2023; Gedik in prep).
One question is the generalizability of these “cuts” to other countries: does every country have the HAA/LAA cut? Does this cut work in other countries? Similarly, there are countries with very low rates of illiteracy — and in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD, Heinrich et al. 2010) [c1] [TG2] countries illiteracy is usually observed in individuals with mental disorders, rather than lack of opportunities of schooling. Many countries differ in the way they formalize education. In this paper, I will focus on Turkey as an example and argue why the HAA/LAA cut does not work for Turkey, then discuss its implications for other countries that may bear similarities. I will also argue that what we traditionally consider HAA (from a WEIRD perspective) in non-WEIRD or not-so-WEIRD countries (such as Turkey) may show as many individual differences as LAA speakers might in a traditionally WEIRD society. In doing so, I aim to invite linguists (and others in cognitive sciences) to carefully consider when using education-related measures and to take into account the local trends in education-related differences.[c3]
1. Setting the scene: Higher Education in Turkey
In Turkey, the education system is structured to provide a comprehensive framework for students from primary school through higher education. At the pinnacle of this system lies the university entrance exam, a crucial milestone that significantly impacts students' educational trajectories and future career prospects. The university entrance exam, commonly known as the "Yükseköğretim Kurumları Sınavı" (YKS), is a standardized test administered annually to assess students' academic readiness for higher education. It is divided into two main components: the TYT (Turkish Proficiency Test) and the AYT (Academic Proficiency Test). The TYT evaluates students' proficiency in Turkish language, mathematics, social sciences, and natural sciences, while the AYT focuses on more specialized subjects related to the student's chosen field of study.
One distinctive aspect of the Turkish education system is the tier system implemented within the university entrance exam. This tier system offers students the flexibility to choose between different exam tracks based on their academic strengths and career aspirations. The two main tiers are the standard track and the vocational track. In the standard track, students take the TYT and AYT exams, which cover a broad range of subjects and are designed for those seeking admission to traditional academic programs in universities. On the other hand, the vocational track caters to students interested in pursuing technical or vocational education. It includes additional exams tailored to specific fields such as health sciences, fine arts, or sports.
Within Turkey's tiered university entrance exam system, test takers not only face the challenge of achieving high scores but also navigating a complex ranking and admission process. After completing the exams, students are scored and ranked based on their performance relative to other test takers. However, admission to specific universities and majors is not solely determined by individual scores. Instead, each university and major sets its own minimum base score requirement.
This minimum base score serves as a threshold that applicants must meet to be considered for admission to a particular university program. However, meeting this threshold does not guarantee admission. Since universities typically receive more applications than they have available spots, admission also depends on the ranking of the applicant relative to others who have applied to the same program. For instance, if two students apply to the same major at a university and one student has a higher score and ranking while listing that major as their preference, they will likely secure admission over the student with a lower score, even if they meet the minimum base score requirement, as every major also has maximum quotas.
Furthermore, it is important to note that universities in Turkey vary significantly in terms of education quality and reputation. With over 200 universities across the country, there is a wide spectrum of academic offerings and institutional standards. Some universities are renowned for their research excellence, faculty expertise, and state-of-the-art facilities, while others may face challenges related to funding, infrastructure, or academic rigor. In short, where one studies significantly predicts the quality of education they will receive. This is not to say that WEIRD countries may not experience this, but it might take place to a smaller extent. Thus, while Turkey has around 8 million actively enrolled university students, of those 8 million, only very few may actually constitute a HAA group in the traditional sense.
2. Why the HAA/LAA Cut May Not Work in Turkey (and alike countries)
First, I begin with evidence from a recent study conducted by Winckel & Dabrowska (2024) with L1 English speakers. These speakers were highly educated (15.5 years spent in formal education on average). When faced with very complex English sentences, print exposure – as measured by an author recognition task – over education (i.e., the number of years spent in formal education) was a more reliable variable predicting individual differences and accuracy in complex syntax comprehension (complex noun phrases, reduced relatives, X-is-difficult-answer, ditransitives). The author recognition task measures how much speakers read by presenting real and foil author names and asking participants to decide if participants know them or do not. This shows that clearly even in a highly educated population education on its own does not necessarily translate to more reading. Some HAA speakers may read more than others, and some HAA speakers may not read at all. One potential criticism is that some of the constructions that Winckel and Dabrowska tested are too complex or do not constitute everyday speech. However, relative clauses and ditransitives are used in spoken English frequently enough that they cannot be deemed peripheral. Therefore, measuring HAA speakers’ performance on more central or easier constructions would be interesting.
One central grammatical construction is the Turkish aorist. It poses difficulties to children during acquisition since the aorist can be realized with multiple form-meaning pairings in various phonological environments. For instance, -Ar can occur with monosyllabic verbs, but -Ir can appear with monosyllabic sonorant ending verbs and multisyllabic verbs. In a recent study conducted by Gedik (2024) among a highly educated population (BA, MA, PhD holders from various universities in Ankara), print exposure accounted for more individual differences (over and above education operationalized as degree attained) in morphological productivity in nonce-verb conjugation with the Turkish aorist. Print exposure was measured using a self-reported reading questionnaire. This is quite interesting since the Turkish aorist is quite an integral part of Turkish grammar. That is, the aorist is used very frequently in spoken language as well as written language. Ideally HAA speakers of Gedik’s study should have performed at ceiling, providing the generalization of the aorist, and homogeneously on such a simple task that tested a central part of Turkish grammar. Instead, again, it was the print exposure questionnaire that predicted their performance over education (operationalized as the number of years spent in formal schooling), and explained roughly 12% of the answers given in the study whereas education was not significant at all. This shows that print exposure can influence the representation of certain constructions even among a highly educated population.
In a separate study, Gedik (in press) studies another central grammatical component of Turkish grammar: optional plural agreement. In Turkish, animate plural nouns may optionally be marked with the plural marker while speakers strongly disprefer marking the verb plural if the subject is plural inanimate. Gedik tested this construction using a timed force binary choice task in combination with print exposure and vocabulary size among 45 BA students from a high tier university, all of whom had roughly 16-17 years of formal schooling on average. This time, print exposure was measured using an author recognition task, which is used widely in other linguistic studies investigating similar phenomena over questionnaires. The participants greatly differed in their use of the construction and print exposure as well as vocabulary size significantly predicted their preferences of using plural agreement. Once again, this shows that even among a highly educated sample at a good university in Turkey, reading may capture more differences than education. If the number of years spent in formal schooling was just as important, the statistical analyses would have proven this; but instead, it was print exposure that was statistically significant.
So the interim summary is that while in some countries, the HAA/LAA cut might work with certain constructions, in different parts of the world and in different languages (as well as constructions), measuring print exposure might be a more viable option. This is because in such countries the number of years spent in formal education may not translate to a cumulative sustained experience with written materials, simply because individuals in such countries may not be expected to read outside of class. Importantly, author recognition tasks are not readily available for every language. In such circumstances, it might be useful to operationalize measuring print exposure with a self-reported reading questionnaire, although such questionnaires are known to be influenced by social desirability (e.g., Acheson et al. 2008, Gedik 2024).
There are instances where it is impossible to measure cumulative effects of experience with written language. After all, not every speaker is literate, or practices reading frequently, as it appears to be the case even among highly educated speakers. Among illiterate and ex-literate populations, print exposure measures cannot be utilized for obvious reasons. In such cases, there are several options that researchers have tried to approximate the cumulative effects of print exposure. These are group membership (literate, semi-literate, illiterate), 1-minute word reading (e.g., Simos et al. 2013), how long the person has received literacy instruction, and the number of years spent in formal education. Now, we discuss these measures in turn and how well they work.
Recently, several studies have investigated the relationship between acquiring literacy and its effects on morphosyntactic knowledge among L1 speakers. These studies (Dabrowska et al. 2022, 2023, Gedik in prep) revealed that group membership is a more reliable predictor of performance in tasks tapping into grammatical comprehension, even when compared to a continuous variable such words read correctly under 1 minute. This is interesting since this is potentially due to the fact that the 1-minute word reading tasks measure two different constructs in different groups: in illiterate or semi-literate speakers, it potentially measures the speed at which orthographic decoding occurs whereas in literate speakers, it potentially measures the current reading fluency – which does not necessarily reflect the cumulative reading experience of a person. After all, Gedik (in prep) shows that some illiterate speakers who were learning to read overlapped in their performance of reading words with literate speakers. However, because performance in the 1-minute word reading task and group are very highly correlated (i.e., literate speakers could read more words on average than illiterate speakers), when group and the 1-minute word reading task are replaced in regression analyses, the results are highly comparable (Gedik, in prep), explaining roughly 45% of the variance in a simple grammar task. A counter argument, however, is that it is highly plausible that illiterate speakers who know more vocabulary items (through spoken language) learn reading faster, and this translates to better performance in tasks tapping into grammar. After all, children with more vocabulary knowledge learn to read and write faster (Lee 2011), and there is no reason why this should not apply to adult learners.
One important note with regard to group membership among illiterate speakers is that it is very difficult to detangle the effects of literacy, education, and cognition on grammatical performance. In other words, group probably captures not only the cumulative reading experience, but also cumulative effects of education, and the effects of these on language and cognition. As Gedik (in prep) and Dabrowska and colleagues (2022) discuss, formal schooling encourages native speakers to think about their own native language by using language tasks that help to reflect on metalinguistic skills or teachers may correct grammatical inconsistencies, which improves cognition and language skills, which improve cognition, which improve language skills in turn and so on. Thus, specifying the cumulative effects of reading among illiterate speakers becomes extra difficult. Be that as it may, when working with illiterate speakers, group membership appears to capture more of the cumulative effects of exposure to written language, since it takes many years for grammar to be influenced by written language (cf. Dabrowska 2021).
In this vein, it would make sense to include the other measures mentioned above (i.e., how long the person has received literacy instruction, and the number of years spent in formal education). However, there are also several issues with these measures when working with illiterate or ex-literate populations. First, many illiterate speakers cannot attend school for various patriarchal or other reasons around the world. This renders using number of years in formal education useless since most participants would answer close to zero, or at least that has been the case in Gedik (in prep). Second, based on personal experience working with illiterate speakers and discussions with those who work with them, illiterate speakers may provide inaccurate or incomplete responses for how long they have received literacy instruction. This is because some speakers received on and off literacy instruction from friends and family, and some attend literacy classes on and off. Therefore, their answers are at best an approximation and hence do not provide to be reliable measures. Another issue with this measure is literate speakers from a certain age cohort will provide the same answer (i.e., age 7 for those above the age of 25 in Turkey because of the way the education system worked back then).
3. Limitations of Traditional Measures in Capturing Linguistic Profiles
Traditional measures, such as the HAA/LAA cut-off or standardized tests of linguistic competence, have long been used to investigate the relationship between education and language skills. However, these measures often fail to fully capture the nuances of linguistic profiles, particularly in individuals from WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) populations. In WEIRD contexts, where access to education is nearly universal and illiteracy is rare, traditional metrics conflate formal education with linguistic competence, overlooking other critical factors such as print exposure or socio-cultural variability.
A deeper issue with traditional measures lies in their inherent WEIRD bias. These metrics were often developed within and for societies with standardized, high-quality education systems. However, applying these measures uncritically to diverse linguistic and cultural contexts risks misrepresenting linguistic realities. For instance, in non-WEIRD countries such as Turkey, significant disparities exist in education quality and access, leading to substantial variability in linguistic outcomes even among individuals categorized as HAA or LAA. This renders the binary HAA/LAA framework ineffective in capturing the full range of linguistic competencies.
Moreover, illiteracy in WEIRD populations is often attributed to factors such as cognitive impairments or socio-economic disadvantage, whereas in non-WEIRD contexts, illiteracy frequently results from systemic barriers to education, such as patriarchal norms or geographic isolation. These divergent causes mean that traditional metrics, developed for WEIRD populations, fail to address the unique challenges faced by speakers in non-WEIRD contexts. As such, the application of WEIRD-centric metrics to non-WEIRD populations without contextual adaptation is methodologically unsound and ethically questionable.
4. Where do we go from here?
The exploration of the entangled nature of first language learning, education, and literacy unveils complexities that challenge traditional notions within linguistics. As evidenced by the studies discussed here, the relationship between education, literacy, and grammatical knowledge is nuanced and multifaceted, with implications extending beyond theoretical frameworks to practical considerations in research methodology and pedagogy. Linguists need to be careful in selecting which measures to use in their studies and always consider both the population and the country specific conditions.
The findings discussed above underscore the importance of reevaluating established paradigms within linguistics, particularly regarding the influence of education on linguistic competence. While conventional wisdom (looking at previous studies) may suggest that higher levels of formal education equate to greater grammatical proficiency, emerging research suggests that this relationship is not straightforward, especially in not-so-WEIRD countries. Instead, factors such as print exposure and literacy (group membership) play significant roles in shaping linguistic abilities, often surpassing the predictive power of education alone in tasks tapping into grammatical knowledge.
Moreover, the context-specific nature of language acquisition and education becomes apparent when considering diverse linguistic communities and educational systems. The case of Turkey serves as a good example, highlighting the inadequacy of applying a universal HAA/LAA cut to measure linguistic proficiency. In non-WEIRD countries like Turkey, where educational trajectories are influenced by a myriad of socio-cultural factors and where the quality of education varies significantly among institutions, traditional metrics may fail to capture the complexities of linguistic development.
Therefore, researchers must adopt a more nuanced approach to studying language and education, taking into account the unique socio-cultural contexts in which language acquisition occurs. This includes considering alternative measures of linguistic competence, such as print exposure (such as author recognition tasks or questionnaires when such tasks are not available) and group membership based on literacy levels, which may better reflect the cumulative effects of language experience. Collecting data for both measures will capture the individual differences of the participants in that context and establish a bottom-up measure rather than using a top-down approach of “group” which may overlook the fuzzy boundaries of, for instance, being an illiterate speaker who may have received some literacy education from others in their family.
Furthermore, the challenges posed by illiteracy highlight the need for innovative methodologies that accommodate diverse populations. Conventional measures such as years of formal education or duration of literacy instruction may prove inadequate for illiterate individuals, necessitating alternative approaches such as using 1 minute word reading tasks or potentially verbally administered questionnaires that account for their unique linguistic backgrounds and linguistics experiences.
Moving forward, interdisciplinary collaboration between linguists, educators, and policymakers is crucial for developing inclusive research methodologies and educational interventions that address the diverse needs of learners worldwide. By embracing the entangled nature of language learning, education, and literacy, we can foster a deeper understanding of human language capabilities and promote more equitable opportunities for linguistic development.
In conclusion, the entangled nature of first language learning, education, and literacy challenges conventional notions within linguistics and underscores the importance of considering diverse contexts and populations in research and practice. By embracing this complexity and adopting innovative approaches, we can advance our understanding of language acquisition and promote more inclusive educational practices globally.
Additional Information
Conflict of Interest
The author(s) declare no competing interests.
Statement of Data Availability
I have reviewed the research standards on Equator Network: none of the standards are applicable to this type of review/opinion paper. This paper was not preregistered.
References
Acheson, Daniel J., Justine B. Wells & Maryellen C. MacDonald. 2008. New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods 40(1). 278–289. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.278.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT press.
Christiansen, Morten H. & Nick Chater. 2016. The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39. e62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031X.
Cunningham, Anne E & Keith E Stanovich. 1998. What reading does for the mind. American educator. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS 22. 8–17.
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1997. The LAD goes to school: a cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics 35(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1997.35.4.735.
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2012. Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(3). 219–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab.
Dabrowska, Ewa. 2021. How writing changes language. In A. Mauranen & S. Vetchinnikova (eds.), Language Change: The Impact of English as a Lingua Franca. Cambridge University Press, 75–94. Cambridge University Press. https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/CJES/article/view/78219.
Dąbrowska, Ewa, Esther Pascual & Beatriz Macías Gómez-Estern. 2022. Literacy improves the comprehension of object relatives. Cognition 224. 104958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104958.
Dąbrowska, Ewa, Esther Pascual, Beatriz Macías-Gómez-Estern & Miquel Llompart. 2023. Literacy-related differences in morphological knowledge: A nonce-word study. Frontiers in Psychology 14. 1136337. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1136337.
Gedik, Tan Arda. 2024. Print exposure leads to individual differences in the Turkish aorist. Language Sciences 104. 101632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2024.101632.
Gedik, Tan Arda. Under review. Development of The Turkish Author Recognition Task (TART) and the Turkish Vocabulary Size Test (TurVoST).
Gedik, Tan Arda. In prep. Literacy at Work: Ultimate Native Language Attainment. Book Manuscript.
Gedik, Tan Arda. In press. Linguistic Experience Predicts Optional Plural Agreement in Native Turkish Speakers.
Lee, J. (2011). Size matters: Early vocabulary as a predictor of language and literacy competence. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 69-92.
Ritchie, Stuart J. & Elliot M. Tucker-Drob. 2018. How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Science 29(8). 1358–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774253.
Simos, Panagiotis G, Georgios D Sideridis, Dimitrios Kasselimis & Angeliki Mouzaki. 2013. Reading fluency estimates of current intellectual function: demographic factors and effects of type of stimuli. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. Cambridge University Press 19(3). 355–361.
Street, James A. 2020. More lexically-specific knowledge and individual differences in adult native speakers’ processing of the English passive. Language Sciences 78. 101254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101254.
Street, James A & Ewa Dąbrowska. 2010. More individual differences in language attainment: How much do adult native speakers of English know about passives and quantifiers? Lingua. Elsevier 120(8). 2080–2094.
Winckel, Elodie & Ewa Dąbrowska. 2024. Language Analytic Ability, Print Exposure, Memory and Comprehension of Complex Syntax by Adult Native Speakers. Journal of Cognition 7(1). 7. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.333.
Review
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25189/2675-4916.2025.V6.N2.ID785.R
Editorial Decision
EDITOR: Sterre Leufkens
ORCID: https://orcid.org/
FILIAÇÃO: Universiteit Utrecht, Utreque, Países Baixos.
-
DECISION LETTER:
Rounds of Review
REVIEWER 1: Ana Luísa Costa
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2529-4135
AFFILIATION: Escola Superior de Educação de Setúbal, Setúbal, Portugal.
-
REVIEWER 2: Ricardo Tavares Martins
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5276-2678
AFFILIATION: Instituto Federal do Sertão Pernambucano, Pernambuco, Brasil.
-
ROUND 1
REVIEWER 1
2024-11-08 | 12:07 PM
- Assessment
The article “The entangled nature of first language learning, education, and literacy” presents a study compiling evidence that challenges traditional measures of language development for illiterate populations and in non-WEIRD countries.
Overall, relevant arguments are presented, but the examples that illustrate them are not integrated in the structure of the reasoning, except by reference to other studies. In order to strengthen reasoning and make the argument even more convincing, it is advisable to have examples of empirical data challenging the validity of dominantly linguistic measures. It is argued, with great relevance, that conventional measures do not take into account the complex relationships between language development, the nature of the late acquisition process, exposure to written culture, diversity in access to socio-cultural interaction experiences. The reader, however, would need more concrete information to support each argument presented. Apart from this, the paper makes a very relevant contribution to the development of methodological perspectives that are more inclusive and freer of prejudices about diverse cultures and people without access to conventional/western literacy.
- Public Review
The study presented in the article “The entangled nature of first language learning, education, and literacy” invites the scientific community to question themselves when using late language acquisition and development measures that do not account for the specificity of human communities of from divergent literacies settings, as illiterate people and people from non-WEIRD regions.
The main strength of this paper is to challenge all of us to question the conventional measures of language and literacy development, many of them involved in the international assessment of educative systems or levels of regional development. These measures, indeed, may take us to biased conclusions if we do not consider the entangled nature of L1 acquisition and development, schooling, access to written culture, or even specificity of each country educational contexts.
Regarding the discussion, the development of the argumentation should be provided. The reasoning lacks a more detailed presentation of data that illustrates and exemplifies each argument, validating the overall point of view. From the section “Now, we discuss these measures in turn” (p. 5) onwards, I would expect more information concerning methodological issues and contrasting results. This section should be the crux of the matter, exposing the answer to the study's objective. Specifically, the paper would benefit from a more in-depth discussion of each argument, with examples of specific data on the measures in question. The mobilization of this data, which is referred to in other studies, or empirical data of this study, would guarantee the autonomy of the reasoning that supports the argument presented. It is made clear that the data exists, but the reader needs to keep it in mind as a support of what is being argued.
To support my point about the need for deeper development of the arguments, note that the most important information is presented only on page 5 in a paper of 8 pages. Framework and context description receive more attention than information that will prove “the defended thesis” (a very good one, deserving a better treatment).
Moreover, section “Where do we go from here?” (p. 6) corresponds to debate and conclusion; however, as pointed previously, the argument and statements are supported by data always referred outside this study. Again, concrete data should be provided to illustrate and support, autonomously, the actual study, even if part of this data is from other studies. For instance, data regarding illiterate subjects (or exemplifying the inadequacy of some measures in some specific contexts) is missing to fulfill the argumentation and draw the conclusions.
- Recommendations for the author
In the next points, I present minor revision suggestions:
3.1. p. 1 “Education is an amalgamation of opportunities for reading (becoming literate) and improving cognition.”
- 1 “these literacy practices (i.e., reading).”
Suggestion: “for reading and writing” since becoming “literate” is to have access to written culture, participating in its discourse communities.
- 1 “these literacy practices (e.g., reading).”
3.2. from p. 2 The concept “WEIRD COUNTRIES” should be explained to readers, with references to literature about it, to avoid misreading or interpreting it as a judgment. I strongly recommend the expansion of the abbreviation “wester, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic” in its first occurrence in the text.
3.3. p.3/4 This (very long) sentence should be revised to improve clarity: “When faced with very complex English sentences, print exposure – as measured by an author recognition task – over education (i.e., the number of years spent in formal education) was a more reliable variable predicting individual differences and accuracy in complex syntax comprehension (complex noun phrases, reduced relatives, X-is-difficult-answer, ditransitives).”
3.4. p. 4 The referent of the pronoun “These” should be made explicit to help the interpretation of “These are group membership (literate, semi-literate, illiterate), 1-minute word reading (e.g., Simos et al. 2013), how long the person has received literacy instruction, and the number of years spent in formal education.” The overall idea is difficult to process, so I suggest the revision of the sentence.
Please, check other recommendations in the word document.
-
REVIEWER 2
2024-11-18 | 10:19 PM
O manuscrito objetivou abordar a intrínseca relação existente entre a aprendizagem da primeira língua, a educação e o letramento e para tanto se apoiou por meio de uma pesquisa bibliográfica em resultados de estudos anteriores que demonstraram bem essa relação, além, também, de exemplificar essa mesma relação por meio de resultados de casos específicos como o que acontece na Turquia com seu sistema educacional de nível superior para seleção de alunos. Os resultados demonstraram necessidade de rever sistemas de seleção baseados em critérios que talvez não demonstrem a realidade em que muitos estudantes estão inseridos e que desconsideram a relação intrínseca entre a aprendizagem da primeira língua com a educação e o letramento. Sendo assim, trata-se de temática importante a ser discutida não apenas no âmbito da linguística, mas também da pedagogia/educação, sendo de interesse de pesquisadores e professores tanto para países em situações similares às narradas no manuscrito e até mesmo países diferentes, mas que não estejam levando em consideração a relação entre língua, educação e letramento discutida ao longo do texto.
PDF
